J Rehabil Med 2015; 47: 193–203
Review Article
SCREENING FOR COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AFTER STROKE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES AND CLINICAL UTILITY Louisa Burton, MSc1,2 and Sarah F. Tyson, PhD1 From the 1Stroke Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester and 2Greater Manchester & Cheshire Cardiovascular Network, UK
Objective: To systematically review the psychometric pro perties and clinical utility of cognitive screening tools poststroke. Data sources: EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychInfo. Study selection: Studies testing the accuracy of screening tools for cognitive impairment after stroke. Data extraction: Data regarding the participants, selection criteria, criterion/reference measure, cut-off score, sensitiv ity, specificity and positive and negative predicted values for the selected tools were extracted. Tools with sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 60% were selected. Clinical utility was assessed using a previously validated tool and those scoring 20 min; • initial costs for purchase of the measure (e.g. starter kit including manual): 2 = freely available; 1 = cost of 12 months BNIS before assessment, poor functional outcome (Barthel score
Review Article
SCREENING FOR COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AFTER STROKE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES AND CLINICAL UTILITY Louisa Burton, MSc1,2 and Sarah F. Tyson, PhD1 From the 1Stroke Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester and 2Greater Manchester & Cheshire Cardiovascular Network, UK
Objective: To systematically review the psychometric pro perties and clinical utility of cognitive screening tools poststroke. Data sources: EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychInfo. Study selection: Studies testing the accuracy of screening tools for cognitive impairment after stroke. Data extraction: Data regarding the participants, selection criteria, criterion/reference measure, cut-off score, sensitiv ity, specificity and positive and negative predicted values for the selected tools were extracted. Tools with sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 60% were selected. Clinical utility was assessed using a previously validated tool and those scoring 20 min; • initial costs for purchase of the measure (e.g. starter kit including manual): 2 = freely available; 1 = cost of 12 months BNIS before assessment, poor functional outcome (Barthel score
